Raytheon Applied Signal Technology, Inc. v. Emerging Markets Communications, Inc. et al

Filing 291

ORDER re 282 10/7/2011 Joint Discovery Letter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 11/15/2011. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 APPLIED SIGNAL TECHNOLOGY, INC., 12 Plaintiff, No. C-09-02180 SBA (DMR) ORDER ON OCTOBER 7, 2011 JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER 13 v. 14 15 16 17 E M E R G I N G M A R K E T S COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ET AL, Defendants. ___________________________________/ 18 Before the court is the October 7, 2011 joint letter submitted by Plaintiff and counter19 defendant Raytheon-AST (“AST”) and Defendants ViaSat, Inc. and Paradise Datacom, LLC 20 (“ViaSat”) setting forth the parties’ discovery dispute. [Docket No. 282.] The court conducted a 21 telephonic hearing on November 14, 2011. This Order summarizes the rulings made by the court on 22 the record during the November 14, 2011 hearing. 23 The court construes AST’s request to allow specific in-house counsel to receive access to 24 licensing agreements designated as “Highly Confidential -- ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY” (“AEO”) 25 as a motion for relief from the AEO provision in the parties’ protective order. Given the court’s 26 concerns about competitive decisionmakers having access to licensing agreements, which is highly 27 sensitive information, the court does not find grounds to relieve AST from the AEO provision. The 28 1 existence of the AEO provision and related case law makes it clear that the question is one of 2 inadvertent disclosure. See In re Deutsche Bank Trust Co., 605 F.3d 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 3 (“there may be circumstances in which even the most rigorous efforts of the recipient of such 4 [sensitive] information to preserve confidentiality in compliance...with a protective order may not 5 prevent inadvertent compromise.”); Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1471 6 (9th Cir. 1992); Intel Corp. v. Via Technologies, Inc., 198 F.R.D. 525, 529-530 (N.D. Cal. 2000). 7 Further, there is no evidence that the parties reached an agreement relieving them from the 8 obligations of the AEO provisions of the protective order. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. 9 S 13 DONNA M. RYU . Ryu onna M United States Magistrate Judge Judge D ER 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 A H 15 LI 14 R NIA Dated: November 15, 2011 DERED O OR IT IS S FO UNIT ED 12 RT For the Northern District of California 11 NO United States District Court IT IS SO ORDERED. RT U O 10 S DISTRICT TE C TA N F D IS T IC T O R C

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?